Talk:Shotgun/Archive 1

Archive 1

Military/lawenforcement Bias

I must say that the shotgun article and the list of shotguns article seem to be very focused on the use of these firearms in a Military/law enforcement context. Shotguns were originally designed as sporting arms, and have become defense/assault weapons only recently. I feel that rather than being true "articles" both of these pages have been designed as a means for comparing random facts. Neither article has proper referencing, and both articles make a mockery of the Wikipedia ideal.--Jarrodhollinger 16:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that there should be more information on sporting use, I must disagree about military and defensive use. Shotguns have been used in military and defensive roles for as long as they've been in existence, and, arguably, for far longer, given the documented use of buck and ball loads in flintlock muskets, and the use of multiple subcaliber balls in the arquebus and musketoon. The shotgun didn't come into existence until the 1800s, when rifled barrels and small bores displaced the .75 inch smoothbore musket; prior to that point the only difference between a musket and a fowling piece was that a musket typically had a shorter barrel. See the 1728 Cyclopaedia definition of "fowling piece", for an example of the lack of early distinction--it defines a fowling piece as a high quality arquebus with a long barrel and a consistent diameter, well polished bore. And come to think of it, I think that's a good place to start the history of the shotgun... scot 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Older comments

Areas where this article is still weak:

• History of the shotgun
• police/military use of shotguns (I don't think any armies use them, but don't some SWAT teams use them for urban assault)?

I seem to recall that the US Coast Guard uses them -do they have a naval use? --rmhermen

• "sawnoff" shotguns?

Yes, the Columbine Massacre page linked to Sawed Off Shotguns - I redirected it to here, but there is nothing here on sawing them off!

--Robert Merkel

From http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/Pages/news_com_shot.html

29 May 2000: "Designated the M1014 Combat Shotgun, the M1014 is a gas operated, semi-automatic 12-gauge shotgun designed and manufactured by Benelli for HK, Inc. It is being procured for issue to all of the Armed Services, including the US Coast Guard and Special Operations Command, to replace or augment the current inventory of pump-action shotguns."

---

This is a question. How many shots can be fired before reloading? Is this pumpaction? And was this possible in 1935

6 rounds, semiauto. I don't understand what you mean by that date. Any shotgun used by militaries would probably have a high ammo capacity.

Source: http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/sh19-e.htm

I think that would be 7 rounds before reloading. The link refers to 6 in the magazine, and there would be one in the chamber. And possibly an 8th round under the bolt atop the carrier. The trench shotguns and riot guns used in WWI had 6 round capability, and were pump action. John M. Browning created a semiautomatic shotgun for waterfowling in 1905 or so, but until the M1014, most military and police shotguns were pump action, because of that action's reliability. RPellessier

Quotes from "Give Us More Shotguns! American Trench Guns in the Great War", Bruce N. Canfield, American Rifleman, May 2004: "Circa 1900 ... the US Army purchased 200 Model 1897 slide action (pump)repeating shotguns in the Phillipines. ... total capacity of 6 rounds, 5 in the magazine, 1 in the chamber... 19196 (Winchester Model 97) guns were delivered to the Army during the First World War... 3500 (Remington Model 10) guns were delivered... Germans delivered a protest against the American use of shotguns..." RPellessier

---

(Shot Pattern description requested below was accomplished on 1/1/05) RPellessier

The article's "puff" that expands the shot pattern is not a good way to describe the development of the shot pattern. A description based on random flight or dispersion of the pellets in the airstream would be better. RPellessier

We have a pretty good article here, but it is probably in need of more organization and a rewrite. Shot is covered in multiple areas, for instance. The coverage is reasonably thorough. RPellessier

While investigating the properties of cubic shot, I found the following link. Musch of the specialty information appears to come directly from this page. RPellessier 18:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

http://www.hi-vel.com/Catalog__18/Specialized_Shotshell_Ammuniti/specialized_shotshell_ammuniti.html

I'd like to recommend moving all of the ammunition info to a different page, because of its great size. RPellessier 18:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I like the barrel length section, but I would like to change the barrel lengths. See this reference to a popular competition shotgun: http://www.berettausa.com/product/product_competition_guns_main.htm It shows skeet barrels from 28 to 30 inches (26 inches was once popular). Sporting clays barrels are offered from 28 to 32 inches. Trap barrels run from 30 to 34 inches. RPellessier 19:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll do some more research and update that. The barrel lengths are not important so much as relative length vs. intended use. The issue of action type vs. barrel length is also worth discussing; pump and semi-auto shotguns add up to 6 inches of length vs. a break-open design. Since the barrel length issue is really an overall length issue (balance and inertia) that should be explicitly explained in the article, and barrel lengths given should note that they are for pump/auto shotguns, and break open designs will be about 4 inches longer. scot 19:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dragon's Breath, in action...

Was looking for info to verify USFS use of Dragon's Breath, and still couldn't find any, so I yanked it. I did find info on composition (at a DEA page containing myths about meth, of all things), and I found this interesting second hand account of one actually being used in an antipersonnel role:

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-21141.html

Dunno how much stock to put in it, but the year later update makes me trust it a bit. It fit's what I'd expect of such a small amount (only an ounce or three of Zr powder would fit in the shell) of indendiary mix--big, bright flash, little damage. scot 22:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

.22 and other caliber shotshells

I'm going to list .22 caliber with the primary gauges, since there are true smoothbore shotguns made for it--Mossberg still makes them, and they even made special "Mo-Skeet-O" skeet (about 2" in diameter) for use with the .22 shotguns (whether or not you can still get the skeet, I don't know). The .22 smoothbore is also used as a "garden gun" since the small charge of light shot (#12) is sufficient for killing rat-sized pests without tearing up the plants. scot 14:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing--the 9mm Flobert rimfire is also a "real" shotgun shell, used in smoothbore arms, and Fiocchi still makes ammo for it (plastic or paper cased, not sure which) in #6 and #8 shot. See http://www.municion.org/cajas/9FlobertG.jpg and http://www.municion.org/8anular/caixa.jpg for pictures of brass and paper cased 9mm Flobert shotshells. scot 15:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Recoil, legal aspects

Two points that this article doesn't address:

• While I'm not a regular hunter or anything, I have used both a shotgun (which I think was a 12 gauge) and a .22 rifle. I know that's a small-caliber rifle, but the recoil from the rifle was negligible whereas the recoil from the shotgun was enough to to nearly knock you backwards if you didn't brace yourself properly. I also noted that some of my father's friends who were duck hunters used to wear shoulder/underarm padding to protect against this recoil. The article doesn't really mention this strong recoil at all.
• As I understand it, shotguns (particularly ones with limited magazine capacity like the under-and-over jobby my father owns) are one of the least restricted firearms in most jurisdictions worldwide. Is that indeed the case? --Robert Merkel 02:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The recoil from a shotgun can be significant--that's just a matter of physics. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, and the mass of the shot times its velocity will equal the mass of the shotgun times the velocity with which it recoils. A .410 will kick less than most centerfire rifles, since it throws a light load of shot, and the velocities in question (about 1200 fps for a standard shot load) are lower than most rifle rounds. Even in the larger gauges, there's a great difference. Olympic ruls allow, as I recall, only 3/4 ounce of shot, and, for example, the Federal round fires it at 1325 fps, which isn't much more potent than a .410 hunting round. A 12 gauge magnum round, on the other hand, can throw an ounce and a half at 1500 fps, and that will certainly recoil with some authority. The mass of the shotgun, the fit of the stock, and the recoil pad will all help reduce the felt recoil to managable levels. Most of the effects of recoil are psychological, however. For example, to move a 150 lb. person backwards at a rate of 1 fps, you'd have to launch 1 oz. at a velocity of 2400 fps (or 2 oz. at 1200 fps, etc.). This is something that only a 10 gauage magnum, or a big game express rifle is capable of, and even then, being accelerated to 1 fps is not enough to knock someone over. Now the 6 lb. shotgun, on the other hand, could easily exceed 15 fps of recoil velocity, and having a poorly shaped stock slap you in the cheekbone at that velocity will certainly hurt.

As far as legality goes, shotguns are probably the most allowed firearms due to the relative unsuitability for nefarious purposes. If ammunition capacity is limited, for example by banning magazine fed designs, and if ammunition is restricted to small shot sizes like bird shot, the shotgun is still suited for its traditional purpose of hunting flying game, or for farm pest control. Unless cut down severely, it's not concealable, and the light shot is lethal to humans only at very short ranges. While still having the potential to be used for criminal activity (the double barrelled sawed-off shotgun being a traditional gangster weapon) it's not a militarily significant threat like a rifle, nor as readily concealed for use in armed robbery or assassination. scot 14:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

legal discussion has no place in this article. if you want to start a "legal issues of shotguns" articles, instead start a "legal issues of guns" article. having a legal section in each gun page would be incredibly difficult to maintain and keep accurate. i "watch" most of the firearms articles, and it takes me at least a few hours a week just to make sure that everything is consistent and correct. a recent article i edited with some dubious legal issues is cannabis cultivation, which has its own Legal issues of cannabis page. guns are simply too broad a subject to have a fragmented discussion. note also removal of legal issues from the carbine page, which may be more appropriate to this discussion. Avriette 19:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree; while detailed discussion of the legalities of shotguns across 50 US states, the EU, Australia, New Zealand, Asia, and so on would be very difficult to maintain, but one sentence saying that "shotguns are amongst the most lightly regulated firearms in most jurisdictions because of their short range and low magazine capacity..." and referencing other articles for more extensive discussion is quite appropriate. --Robert Merkel 05:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

History

I think I've expanded the history section to a reasonable amount. Anywhere we can say it is weak? - --Primalchaos 16:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Links. I noticed sawed-off shotgun mentioned, and that article does exist, as do articles for riot shotgun and combat shotgun which you could work in (maybe move some of the military history to combat shotgun?). Other than that, it looked good at first glance. scot 19:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I went back and looked at the article as a whole, not just the last set of diffs, and I noticed that the links I mentioned were elsewhere in the article, but I think this article is long enough that the history section should re-link to riot shotgun and combat shotgun. scot 20:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This article is shockingly americo-entric, considering the very considerable contribution of Britain to the development weapon it would be better if someone bothered to recognise it.

I agree with the American-centric view (or rather I agree that is is), at least as far as the history section goes; everything else looks to be generic or (in the case of legal issues) coveres a number of English speaking countries. I suspect POV-ness of the history section is due to a lack of non-US contributors. If you can point out any references, or other sections you consider to be to narrow, I'm sure that someone will be happy to expand the article. I know the Brits make some nice doubles, but that's about the extent of my knowledge--do the police or military there use even use shotguns, or is that truly an American thing?. Also, don't let the British government hear you call it a "weapon", or you might find the history of the shotgun in the UK coming to a sudden end... scot 15:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You're pretty much right, to be honest the history section was the only part that i really thought needed much work with British gun control laws shotguns are really only used for hunting these days. My main concern was that the British played a large role in the developing the different technologies used, yet i didn't really see anything that referenced it. I'm new here so thanks for responding so quickly, I'll have a look and see what I can find. By the way i know what you mean about only really having heard about British doubles, but the point I was making was that until the turn of the century those were the most important and even after that British guns continued to be some of the best competition guns in the world.

Well, being the typical American, I'm much more familiar with pumps and semi-auto designs; this is mine. With a cheap foreign double going for US$500 or more, a US branded import running $700, and a good US made one like the Ruger going for over US$900, the average hunter is going to go for the $200 Mossberg, Remington, or Winchester pump. Add to the price the fact that US$50-150 gets you a new barrel to turn it into a riot gun, slug gun, turkey gun, upland bird gun, or waterfowl gun, and you just can't beat the basic pump for price and versatility. Granted, doubles are gaining ground here, but I think that's mostly due to sporting clays, which is designed to be shot with a double (different chokes in each barrel come in handy, and they clays are thrown in pairs). For the highest end guns, the Italian guns seem to get the most attention around here. I've seen some of the Perrazi models will set you back close to US$100,000--right up there with the Purdys--yet their low end guns are under US$5,000. scot 00:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This is one case where the American angle on the history is somewhat understandable. Every major development in shotguns since the 1870s has been the work of American companies or individuals (see John Browning), and it remains one of the most widespread firearms in that country despite no bans on other types of gun ownership. Also, as a police service weapon, it is not nearly as popular in Europe or Asia as in America. Also, in my initial research of the subject, a overwhelming majority of the historical incidents involving shotguns were based on America. They were the only ones to deploy them as a standard battlefield weapon in the 20th century in World War 1 and later with Marines in World War 2, they developed every action except the break-action, etc. etc. European incidents, where applicable, were also mentioned, such as the French Resistance and later French patrols in Vietnam. But there simply isn't as many of them.--Primalchaos 18:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep something else in mind. Contrary to popular belief, driven by Hollywood, it was shotguns, not sixguns, that won the West. Pistols took skill to use well; most settlers relied on scatterguns to feed & protect themselves. (I just wish I could recall my source...) Trekphiler 03:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Is "choke" worthy of its own article?

The section on choke is pretty large, and could probably be expanded even more-- there's a lot of recent development in chokes, what with interchangable tubes, sporting clays, etc. I could see sections on patterning, rules of thumb on selecting choke (70-75% in 30" at the intended range seems to be a common one), plus there are non-shotgun related chokes, such as those on target grade .22 rimfire and air rifles. scot 01:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Common uses: skeet, trap, etc.

Skeet and Trap are mentioned in the article but not in the common uses. I would bet a large majority of shells go to these sports. I can't think of anything to say other than they are used for skeet and trap. Someone involved in competition could do a much better job expanding the entry. Dimitrii 22:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

Does anybody know if the shot Chenny used would realistically penetrate to Waddington's heart at 30 yards?

It's possible, but pretty unlikely, as it's only going to penetrate a couple of inches at that range. From what I gathered, however, he was hit in the face, neck, and chest, and the pellet that was causing problems was wandering through his circulatory system. It's possible that a pellet made it into a vein, and then worked its way down towards the heart (which would explain why they were having fits tracking it). scot 16:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not credible. The shot got there directly through the chest wall. To travel from a vein to where it was found is pure (and unlikely) spectulation.

There is no question that this is negligence. The duty of care is clear, "to ensure that the field of fire is clear before pulling the trigger."

Yes, that is true. However, Whittington was also negligent in that he approached the shooters through heavy brush, where he may not have been visible. Do you just wander past the shooting line when you're on a shooting range, without calling for a cease fire? It is, after all, the responsibility of all shooters to be sure of what's downrange, but would you bet your life on it? Or, if you're not a shooter, do you run right out in the street if you're at a crosswalk, or do you check traffic first? You do, as the pedestrian, have the right of way, after all, so you should be safe. However, I think any judge would agree that if someone entered the crosswalk without warning, the driver could not be found criminally responsible for an accident, even though the driver was technically at fault.

If the hunters had cleared the area earlier, they probably assumed (wrongly, as it turns out) that the area would remain clear. Cheney was cited (a warning, standard procedure since it was a new law) for lack of a proper tax stamp, but was not cited for the shooting incident. So while there was negligence involved (there is no such thing as shooting someone "accidentally") it was not a case of gross negligence, and the evidence suggests that fault rests on both parties. scot 19:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

More accidental than negligence, I would think. Quail fly very low to existing brush tops (often just above) when flushed. They also make a loud fluttering sound if in a large covey, making enough noise to mask easily the footsteps of someone 30 yards distant. If someone is coming up through heavy brush walking slowly, it would be impossible to see or hear him. Quails flying just over the brush would be visible, but the individual would not be. Then, BANG. At a distance of 30 yards, the shot would definitely drop into the upper part of the brush, where the poor fellow was approaching, and it would likely hit him in the face and upper chest, even with light bird 7.5 birdshot. The nature of hunting in such a thick cover prevents a shooter from ensuring that someone violating the line of fire would not be hit. Yaf 19:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you just speculating or do you have any evidence for this theory of the event? I've read nothing about Whittington being ahead of the shooting line. I have no doubt that this was unintentional -- though Cheney is known to have a temper :-)

The information I've seen stated that Whittington was in fact out of line at the time. See the shooting report here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0213061cheney2.html "Whittington downed a bird and went to retrieve it. While he was out of the hunting line another covey was flushed and Cheney swung on a bird and fired strking Whittington..." scot 04:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless good reason is given for this to continue to be in an article about shotguns and their workings, I'll be removing this entire section. We don't reference any other 'shotgun' incidents in the article except to demonstrate some sort of historical fact, and it is decidely un-encyclopedic. If you want, include a See Also.--Primalchaos 12:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Only for historical reference. The rationale being that this section in the shotgun article is focused on the shotgun gauge, the shot shell size, and the distance over which the shot was fired. Many articles on particular guns on Wikipedia include infamous uses of guns. See the Tec-9, etc. Also, articles on individuals often include such gun details, similarly, see Gavrilo Princip. It isn't often that a sitting VP shoots someone; it is only the second time in the history of the US. (Hamilton shooting Burr was the only other time, and we all know how that ended. And it wasn't a shotgun.) I think we should keep this trivia in the shotgun article, primarily to key an individual in, say a few years, that a shotgun was used in this incident. If they want more details, they can go read about it. That said, where's the link to the main discussion of this incident? That is missing. Yaf 16:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Then it should be a limited one sentence point with a link to the main article somewhere in the history section, not its own rather unnecessarily extensive paragraph. As it stands, this is editing by fad, not by importance. The only reason it is here is because it is all over the news right now.--Primalchaos 04:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The Burr thing was also a duel, and duels were a bit more legal back then than they are now. AllStarZ 16:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's not at all clear to me that a reference to the Chenet shooting incident should be here. It is extremely tangential to the topic of shotguns. Unless we put an accounting of the Cheney incident in hunting, quail, Texas, myocardial infarction, etc. as well, it doesn't belong here. Is it reasonable for an reader who wants info about the Cheney incident to come here? --Deville (Talk) 00:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Questionable addition

"For instance, in the 2004-2005 North Carolina hunting season in the United States, a vast majority of fatal shooting incidents amongst hunters involved a shotgun. [1] In one notorious incident in 2006, Dick Cheney became the second sitting Vice President ever to shoot another person, during quail hunting incident in Texas when he shot another hunter with a 28-gauge shotgun."

According to the stats linked to, about 5-6 people are killed each year while hunting, and 3 of those are killed by falls from treestands. The bit about Cheney can probably go back in (it looked out of context without the prior statement) but the "vast majority" statement makes it seem as though hunting fatalities are common, when in fact they are not. An order of magnitude more people are killed each year bicycling (I don't have the stats handy, but if anything I'm understating that by an order of magnitude). scot 22:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with boh removals. As i said above, I think the Cheney stuff shouldn't be here at all. Also, it seems as though you are right, the content of the link is radically different from the claims in the text. This makes sense as well; I'd actually be surprised to find that shotguns were so prevalent in injuries and deaths, if anything, I'd think rifles caused many more casualties in hunting accidents. --Deville (Talk) 00:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Rifles are certainly more lethal; shotguns are pretty limited in effective range, although they are generally used in situations (moving targets) where it's a lot more likely to hit someone if you are not very careful about keeping your zones of fire well defined (which was how Whittington got hit, he walked out of the brush into the firing zone). However, the number of hunting fatalities is very small, so it's hard to make statistical statements about them--and since the stats included only one state, which may well have shotgun-only rules for deer hunting, that makes the stats even more suspect. I still find it sort of humerous that the most recent year had 6 fatalities, 3 of them due to falling from tree stands...maybe someone should tell Feinstein so she can start banning ladders... scot 01:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The Cheney addition should go, it was originally added to get rid of an entire separate section on the 'fad' incident. However, read the actual quote, which was quoted to show the commonality of shotguns barring any other real statistics on the subject, not to talk about hunting fatalities. Then again, given the phrasing that a simple statistic quote was attacked as "leftist propaganda" shows the mentality of those pushing for removal. It cited specifically "fatal shooting incidents" which the linked statistics do play out. If something a bit more less "controversial" can be shown that equally shows how common shotgun use is amongst hunters, that would be fine. As far as the accusation that I added government statistics as leftist propaganda, I consider that an insult to my academic integrity and highly inappropriate. I will place the hunting statistics back up unless some better information can be found to substantiate the claim that shotguns are the most common hunting weapons used in the States.--Primalchaos 02:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Using the term "vast" when referring to an total annual hunting fatality rate of about 6 for NC is very misleading, and the numbers involved in the statistics are so low that any generalities drawn from them are going to be highly suspect. Hunting with shotguns is also more prone to negligent shootings, because the targets are moving quickly, and over-eager hunters can swing past the line, or step out of line, or even (in one mentioned case) stand up in front of a shooter about to take a shot. Even though birdshot is very unlikely to cause a serious injury at a distance of more than a few dozen yards, a foot in front of the muzzle there's little difference between a load of birdshot and a slug. I think that what you need to do to determine relative popularity of shotguns vs. rifles in hunting is look at bird hunting participation, which generally requires a shotgun, vs. deer or varmint hunting, which is generally performed with a rifle. Since hunting almost always requires some form of license, this information is tracked; the difficult part is going to be the differences between states, as some may have lots of bird hunting and little varmint or larger game, while the opposite may be true in other states. scot 03:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

All that is intended here is to present evidence to the fact that the shotgun qualifies as being called 'ubiquitous' from a hunting standpoint, so we are presenting scholarly fact rather than just vague common knowledge. And the reason I'm using accident statistics is they are the only reliable stats on when and how hunting weapons are being used. I added a new clearer version of the same type of information that passes muster, lest I be guilty once again of "leftist propaganda".--Primalchaos 03:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I still question the validity of extrapolating usage based on injury stats; this article http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/10735/ covers hunting accidents by type, and the "mistaken for game" category, mainly rifles, outnumbered the "swinging on game" category, which is entirely shotgun. I'm looking for permit stats, which I think will provide the most reliable numbers. scot 03:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Not be contrary, but I find nothing in this article that defines the weapon type used solidly, and the source seems dubious at best compared to official government statistics. And most permits don't outline what type of weapon you plan to using - a deer hunting permit would allow someone to use a slug-firing shotgun as equally as a deer rifle, for instance. Now, I agree if we were trying to determine the exact percentage of shotguns compared to other types of guns for hunting, accident statistics would be inadequate. But for merely demonstrating that shotguns are extremely common, it is more than valid.--Primalchaos 13:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

To make sort of a meta-comment on this whole thread, let me first say that the article is better now than it was, because things are stated more explicitly. Second, I would like to point out that when one uses the term "vast majority", this does have a certain connotation. If one later finds out that the statistical universe we sampled from was three, then this leaves one with a bad feeling. Not saying anything was meant to deceive, but let's be careful to be as explicit about the data as possible, especially recalling Mark Twain's comment on statistics... ;) --Deville (Talk) 05:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

ammunition

specialty shotgun amunition is covered best this, shotgun, article, also in shotgun shells also (badly) in the unnescssary 'category:shotgun shells' and even worse in list of shotgun cartridges

I suggest moving all that information into the 'shotgun shell' article. leaving a brief description in shotgun deleting 'category:shotgun shells', list of shotgun cartridges, and most sub articles

unless anyone has any significant objection I'll do it, soon. I'll keep the same format we allready have on this page, overall description of most common types, then, brief/general descriptions everything else.

Sounds good to me, though the category might be worth keeping if there are individual articles on specialized shells; if everything redirects back to shotgun or shotgun shell, then I'd say delete it. scot 14:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Doom weapons" category

There is no mention of Doom in the article, yet it is categorized in Doom weapons?

What's more, the only other weapons in this category are Chainsaw and the BFG. What the hell is going on? -125.236.44.44 02:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

shot type

I believe that lead shot is now outlawed for the hunting of birds, and possibly other creatures.

The ban on lead shot applies to waterfowl hunting only. Ducks and geese "eat" small pebbles, which are stored in their gizzard for help in digesting food. Since shot often lands in the shallow water and shore where the waterfowl get these pebbles, the shot is collected and stored in the birds' gizzards as well. Since food is constantly passing through the gizzard, and being ground with the shot, lead can enter the bloodstream fairly easily. Bismuth, steel, and tungsten based shot are all non-toxic, and do not cause the health issues that lead shot does. Lead shot can still be used for non-wetlands hunting; even if a bird is wounded and pellets stay in the body, that is not a significant source of lead poisoning. scot 15:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

In Denmark, (and I guess in most other European countries as well) lead shot have been completely banned for quite some years. Steel shot is normally not allowed in forests because pellets embedded in the trees cause damage to the saws blades. AnotherEngineer (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll defer to you on the European legality; my statement applies only to the US, and I should have noted it as such. I do, however, question the actual probability of steel shot becoming embedded in a tree; steel shot penetrates poorly and looses velocity rapidly, both a function of it's lower density, and I wouldn't expect it to penetrate the bark at anything but very close range. That's not to say it's not illegal for that reason, certainly gun laws in the US have little or no grounding in reality. scot (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the European legality, it seems that only Denmark and The Netherlands enforce a complete ban i.e. simply the possession of lead cartridges is illegal. Here is a few sources I found: This article cites on p. 427 the info on Denmark and the Netherlands from a book that I could not verify, but this report by the same author contains a list of the status in many, if not all countries incl. Denmark and The Netherlands p. 51,63. A summarizing table is available on page 22.

Finally, in the Danish weapon law, Lead shot is banned in §2 a.

Regarding steel shot becoming lodged in trees, whether plausible or not, it is de facto standard that forest owners ban the use on their property. The Danish forest union has even made a list of specific cartridges allowed on their property, apparently tested for “damage to cutting tools” and “discoloration of the wood” here (danish). Anyway, it seems that the banning of lead (and steel) shot is more limited than I originally thought and therefore less relevant for the article. On the other hand, since the regulation of lead in general is increasing, it may be worth to mention. AnotherEngineer (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

References

not sure how to clean this up; I added a <ref> to the 'rock salt' incident, but the references section is formatted differently, at the moment I've just added the wiki <refences /> above the othe references, but this looks pretty ugly. help? --User24 16:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Riding shotgun"

Question maybe unrelated- why do people say 'shotgun' when they want the front passenger seat? (added by User:Play water polo, moved here by me scot 21:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

That's a reference to the fact that stagecoaches are commonly shown being guarded by a man with a shotgun riding next to the driver in Westerns. The term for this was "riding shotgun", and since the front passenger seat is the closest analog to sitting on the bench next to the stagecoach driver, that's the "shotgun seat". scot 21:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone think that we should have a section on this? Or a link to an article on riding shotgun? PBGuardsman 03:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That and other uses (shotgun wedding, shotgun shack, etc.) are covered in Shotgun (disambiguation), referenced in the for other uses link at the top. Since there are a fair number of terms to derive from the shotgun, it might be worth repeating that link in the intro, as part of a sentence pointing out the cultural impact of the shotgun. scot 14:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fully Automatic Shotguns

First, do they even exist in the first place? If so, do they have any real applicable use? If not, what kind of draw backs would come with its use that would dissuade people from useing it? Eny infomation you find about its production and design would help. 69.250.130.215 15:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

To quote our article: "Some of the more interesting advances in shotgun technology include the versatile NeoStead 2000 and fully automatics such as the Pancor Jackhammer or Auto-Assault 12 . These combat shotguns, while popular in movies and computer games due to their exotic nature, have yet to make a noticeable impression in the real world."

There are plenty of drawbacks. Massive recoil and size. Limited usefulness and range. The list goes on. All automatic shotguns that have been developed are curiosities, not viable weapons systems.--Primal Chaos 16:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I just recently ran across a reference to some shotguns made by Remington during the Vietnam War era. They were the models 7180 and 7188, which where variants of the 1100 family, in semiautomatic and fully automatic form, respectively. Some SEAL units were equipped with the 7188 (I saw reference in a forum to a procurement contract for 4 prototypes), and while it was certainly effective as a point weapon, it lacked the reliability of a pump shotgun, and was never adopted. On the other hand, the Atchisson Assault Shotgun design's new owner has updated it and is pushing it to the US military recently. scot (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

Bolt-action feature is described as being relatively rare, but a few lines lower, it's described as being common. twfeline 04:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

They were popular in Australia after the 1997 gun buybacks (which effectively banned pump-action and semi-auto shotguns for anyone who wasn't a farmer), but once people realised they generally only held three shots and had a slower average rate of fire than a double-barrel shotgun, their popularity dropped off. --Commander Zulu 07:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

From "Definition":

"A sawed-off shotgun refers to a shotgun whose barrel has been shortened..."

Some extra info: in Britain it is referred to as a "sawn-off", and never a "sawed-off". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.43.3.79 (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Indeed - the article uses the two terms rather inconsistently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.213.139 (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

Perhaps the "Slang", now "Other names" section could be worked into a short etymology? "Fowling piece" seems to be the oldest term I can find, dating back to 1590[2], while "shotgun" dates to 1770 in the US[3]. Anyone else have any input on this? scot 15:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Other names

• Fowling piece (archaic)
• Slang: Shotty, Pump, Scattergun, Zombie Wacker

I believe as long a there is a citation supporting the use of shotgun as slang, then it should be allowed. We certainly have the room for several terms for shotgun. BirdHunters 18:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding a spider page that links to the title of a message board thread and another on hip hop slang does not establish notability and is far from providing reliable sources. Please see the policy WP:SOURCE.-- I already forgot  talk  20:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Shotgun World is the premiere shotgun page on the Internet, all that is discussed there is shotties. Go to the citation I provided and in your Internet Browser drag and drop "Find in this page" and type in "Zombie" and you will see that it is used as slang for shotguns several times. Shotgun World. BirdHunters 01:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That’s pretty funny. Do we need to create a new cite template that has instructions on how to find WP:SOURCE? Anyway, what you do not understand is that you have yet to provide a reliable source PER WIKIPEDIA POLICY to establish notability (on its use). Another thing you fail to understand is slang is unencyclopedic for an international article as slang varies by region with some uses being limited to a very small sect of people. So if the slang is notable to a point that it should be included in an article, it sure the hell better have reliable sources to back it up. If you do find reliable sources, feel free to add the section in an encyclopdic fashion. I would look for the source for you but I have been around shotguns for over 30 years and have never, not once, heard it called a zombie or zombie gun and actually sounds more like gamers talking about their weapons. I understand you are new so please take a look at the policy and guidelines at wikipedia and also take a close look at featured articles for guidance. Just an FYI, you also have violated WP:3RR so take a look at that policy as well.-- I already forgot  talk  03:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree: forum threads do not count as a reliable source. Even having the link in the article, irrespectively of this particular argument, looks problematic due to this reason. El_C 20:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Zombie gun? That's almost as bad as "Deagle", courtesy of 15 year old CounterStrike players. The only synonyms I've actually heard used for shotguns (besides "shotgun") are "Shotty", "12-gauge", "side-by-side", "under-and-over", and "pump-action", although I'm aware of "Scattergun" and "Riot Gun" (but have never heard them used in conversation). I also agree that Forum Posts are not generally a reliable source, no matter how "big" or "well-known" the particular forum might be. --Commander Zulu 23:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Section order

I cut the long intro down into a new section, "Characteristics", and moved the "Usage" section up to the top. Due to the huge variety in shotguns, I think the uses and characteristics should be covered before the legal definition and sub-types are mentioned--in that way we can establish the commonalities before we get into the variations. Also, should the specialty ammunition be put in the shotgun shell article, or stay here? scot 15:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Range

Whats the longest range that any shotgun can shoot? -- 24.254.14.228 23:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a very "how long is a rope" type question. Effective range or maximum range? What size shot, what gauge, what choke? What about shotgun slugs, or exotic ammunition such as the Frag-12 grenades, flechette or SCMITR rounds? The answer is going to range from 15 or so yards for the effective range of a skeet gun, out to over a mile for maximum ballistic range on a saboted slug. scot 13:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the rope, Scot. Not to disagree with your point, but I regularly break clays at 30 yards with #9 shot in my .410 skeet gun (fixed skeet chokes) and pretty often at 50 yards with the same load and a full choke. And that's why I think we need a fuller discussion of chokes and patterns and targets--the standard for an acceptable hit (lethal range) on birds has to be different than on clays. Marshdog (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Split

The article is now well over 64k in size, and I think it's time to look at a split. Maybe create an article on Shotgun sports (general info and links to skeet, trap, sporting clays, waterfowl and upland bird hunting, etc) and merge the ammunition information into Shotgun shell? scot (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, Scot. Time to split. How? We already have a lede graf that refers to the indiviudal shotgun sports, though it has no links. These are good places for the sports. My problem is with the shot and the chokes discussions, and here's the trouble. We can discuss shot size under shotgun shell. But a meaningful discussion of choke requires a discussion of shot size, also. I imagine a principles section, and a section for each hunting and clays of various sorts, which i could do. What do we call it? Maybe leave a general discussion of ammo here, just delete the "shot" section? GeorgeMarshdog (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Tax Stamp

The article states that a shotgun of less than legal length requires a Federal transfer permit and a $200 tax stamp.

It is my understanding that a short shotgun may considered to be "Any Other Weapon" if it doesn't have a shoulder stock, and the tax stamp is only $5.

Tyrerj (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That depends. If it has a shoulder stock, and is cut down to less than 26" overall or less than 18" or 16" barrel length, then it's a short barreled shotgun or rifle, and requires the $200 transfer stamp; if it comes from the factory with a pistol grip, and is cut down to a concealable length, then it's concealable and may be a pistol; if that pistol is a smoothbore, or has two vertical grips, that makes it an AOW, and requires the $5 stamp. The Serbu "Super-Shorty", for example, is an AOW, because it's made from a Mossberg Cruiser, which comes from the factory with an 18" barrel and pistol grip, and it's cut down to 16" in length and has two vertical grips. If it were made from a Persuader, which is the 18" stocked model, then it would be a short barreled shotgun, even though the final product is exactly the same. And a note on the tax stamps; the manufacturer of an AOW still has to pay a $200 tax upon creation and registration of the AOW, it's just the transfer tax that is less on an AOW. scot (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering about a fact here. The article states that the UK law requires the barrel diameter to be no bigger than 2". That is mighty large for a shoulder-fired weapon. Marshdog (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Right; that applies to punt guns, which are shotguns that are fired from a rest in a small boat. They're used for shooting entire flocks of waterfowl that are on the water. The UK is one of the few places you can still find punt guns. scot (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Paradox Shotgun

This sentence needs more research: "The use of a rifled barrel blurs the distinction between rifle and shotgun, and in fact the early rifled shotgun barrels went by the name Paradox for just that reason"

This is misleading in two respects. First, it implies that a Paradox was simply a rifled shotgun barrel, which it was not. And second, W.W. Greener marketed a rifled shotgun barrel called a "Choke Bore Rifle" in the 1870s that was not a Paradox and not called a Paradox. The Paradox, invented in the 1880s by Vincent Fosbery, was a smoothbore barrel most of it's length with a few inches of rifling near the muzzle. The "paradox" was that it was effective with shot as well as with all types of bullets. It fired bullets accurately and gave a shot pattern equivalent to an Improved Cylinder choke.

The modern equivalent would be a smoothbore shotgun barrel with a rifled choke tube at the muzzle. In fact, one such rifled choke tube is currently marketed under the trademark "Paradox"

From page 401 of "Big Game Shooting" By Clive Phillipps-Wolley (Public Domain)":

"An 8-bore 'Paradox' weights some 2 to 4 lbs. less than an 8-bore rifle, and mounts to the shoulder with the handiness of a gun. The Accuracy of the 'Paradox' is greater than that of an 8-bore rifle, the recoil less (as the bullet passes freely up the barrel, instead of having to cut its way through severe rifling, the 'Paradox' being rifled at the muzzle only), and the velocity or striking force is superior." DrHenley (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

References

• Clive Phillips-Wolley (1894). Big Game Shooting. London: Longmans, Green, and Co. ASIN B000KT2D24.
• MAXROUNDS PowerMag 700 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bldi7 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Image of damage needed

This article should include a photograph of a damaged vest, cinderblock, or door via a shotgun blast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.9.209 (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It could be an awesome animated gif of a guy like flying into a wall and be all like BAM!--71.54.208.211 (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

i have a dblbarrel western arms shotgun made in ithaca

i woukd like to know the value of this gun> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.217.149 (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Click here to send me an e-mail, and I'll get some more information from you. Ithaca made about 10 grades of hammerless doubles, plus imported some SKB models. Prices range from a few hundred for a well used field grade model to $40k for a Sousa grade model. scot (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Repitition in need of fix

Because I am not schooled in firearms myself, I cannot fix the error, but the second paragraph of the introduction contains several lines nearly identical to the fourth paragraph of the "Characteristics" section.

"...the power of the burning charge is divided among the pellets, which means that the energy of any one ball of shot is fairly low. In a hunting context, this makes shotguns useful primarily for hunting birds and other small game....the large number of projectiles makes the shotgun useful as a close quarters combat weapon or a defensive weapon."

"Since the power of the burning charge is divided among the pellets, the energy of any one ball of shot is fairly low, making shotguns useful primarily for hunting birds and other small game. However, the large number of projectiles makes the shotgun useful as a close-combat weapon or defensive weapon." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.132.217 (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

History - fowlers use for shooting birds on the wing

The very first fowlers which were descended from other large caliber smoothbore muskets were very long, sometimes in excess of five feet! They were impractical for shooting birds "on the wing" like modern sporting shotguns. They were used for shooting birds, yes, but almost exclusively from behind hides. People of the day would not waste a chance shot at a flying bird with one of these early shotguns. They were hunting for food, not sport and would not waste a shot on the small chance they'd be successful. Earliest forms of sport shooting was regulated to the upper class in Britain and not done with what is traditionally called a fowler. The fowler had evolved into what we now refer to as a shotgun (with significantly shorter barrels) by the time the practice of shooting "on the wing" became common practice.

I haven't researched it in a while but I believe "Firearms in American History" by Charles G. Worman sites the very same.

Boomcrack (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Pistol Grip Rifles"

I deleted the line "For some purposes, a shotgun can be modified with a pistol grip and no stock, as opposed to a rifle which is generally unlawful to modify in this way under BATFE regulations" from the section Design Features for Various Uses, as there are currently no federal laws banning the installation of a pistol grip (minus shoulder stock) on a rifle, although proposed legislation (HR 1022) would ban this feature. --DOHC Holiday (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd also suggest clarification is needed about pistol grip sans stock as oppo with stock, since I've seen numerous stocked guns with pistol grips. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 04:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Both are legal on shotguns in the US, as long as the barrel is over 18" and the overal length is over 26". --DOHC Holiday (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You're so bad

This is coming back dead... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 02:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Automatic Shotguns

Add this in the "Action" subtitle: A recently developed variant of shotgun uses an assault rifle-like buildup, allowing fully automatic fire as well as magazine-style reloading. Examples are the USAS-12 assault shotgun and the AA-18 shotgun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.14.203 (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

I noticed an error relating to the .410 gauge true diameter. There error states a '.410 gauge is actually "67" gauge.' This is not correct. A .410 is in fact a '35 gauge'. This is referenced many places and fairly common knowledge among those who enjoy shooting this little shotgun. I have purchased shells imported into the USA with both .410 and 35 gauge printed on the label!

Can you provide one of these common references to verify?  fetchcomms☛ 02:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rudae, 28 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the pages about "Shotgun" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun) the "Table of American Standard Birdshot Size" has four errors. The size name listed as "TT" (.230") should be "FF" instead. The size name listed as "T" (.220") should be "F" instead. The size name listed as "FF" (.210") should be "TT" instead. The size name listed as "F" (.200") should be "T" instead.

One reliable source is the pages about "Shotgun Shell" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun_shell) stated in that "Table of American Standard Birdshot Size". In this table size "FF" is listed as being .23"; size "F" is listed as being .22"; size "TT" is listed as being .21"; and size "T" is listed as being .20".

Another reliable source is on the HEVI-Shot® web site (www.hevishot.com) "Tech Center" tab. Here it states that the HEVI-Shot® "Maximum Defense" 2.75" 12-gauge shell has 35 - .20 caliber T-Size) pellets in every shell. Plus it states that the HEVI-Shot® "Dead Coyote" 3" & 3.5" 12-gauge has 50 plus .20 caliber Pellets "T" Shots in every load.

Rudae (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Done -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 19:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Stabilize v. Stabilise, for quick reference

To quote from the Wikipedia manual of style:

"with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic."

FWIW, "stabilise" would be incorrect anyway according to the Oxford English Dictionary (arguably the most reputable English dictionary in the world, published in Oxford, England). Oxford's rationale is that "-ize" is the original spelling and most closely reflects the original Greek root; the "-ise" spelling only became popular in Britain due to the popular (and WRONG) notion that "-ize" is an Americanism. It is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.127.157 (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Scattergun?

Where I grew up in western NC, "Shotgun" and "Scattergun" were not synonymous. A Scattergun was a specialized short (18" - 20")double barrelled side-by-side shotgun - 12 gauge or larger - whose barrels tapered to a slightly oval shape over the lenght of the barrel with the long axis of the oval hortizontal. The defining feature was that the triggers were chained together so that both barrels would fire simultaneously, spraying the shot in a hortizontal spread across the field of aim (there was no "point" of aim possible). With 00 shot, you could cut down trees (or a whole gang of scoundrels)with one. My grandfather had a 10 gauge Scattergun that was the devil itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.174.221.168 (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a coach gun with the exception of chained triggering. What make/model was it? Firing more than one shot with a single trigger pull has been illegal since 1934 (see National Firearms Act). I don't believe he bought it that way even if it precedes that time. Someone may have modified it or it got boogered up that way by accident. I equate scattergun with a coach gun.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarification, please

The term "fixed shell" needs clarification for us not literate in the terminology of arms. "Fixed" in relation to what? And what would be a "non-fixed" shell? 05:22, 30 November 2008 User:72.229.62.47

Under the History Section, Late 20th Century to Present, there are these sentences. "The prevalence of the shotgun's use in hunting can be easily shown by the number of hunting incidents reported to wildlife and game officials. Of the thirty-four hunting accidents reported in Wisconsin in 2005, sixteen involved shotguns, making them the most common hunting firearm. The second most common was rifles of various calibers. (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2005[13]" The number of incidents involving shotguns cannot be linked directly to how popular they are since multiple factors are involved in hunting accidents. In addition, the inclusion of rifles being the second most common is completely unnecessary in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.32.10 (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. Thank you for pointing it out.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The TASER XREP section needs an update: The XREP has been discontinued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.247.22 (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

needs reference

Barrel length

"Shotguns generally have longer barrels than modern rifles. Unlike rifles, however, the long shotgun barrel is not for ballistic purposes; shotgun shells use small powder charges in large diameter bores, and this leads to very low muzzle pressures (see internal ballistics) and very little velocity change with increasing barrel length. According to Remington, modern powder in a shotgun burns completely in 25 to 36 cm barrels." This needs a reference! It is not what I have found for velocities on numerous other sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.10.164 (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Addition to history section.

I came to the page interested in the history of the shotgun. The page is protected. Two things:

1.)

The progression from blunderbuss to fowler was a gradual one. Fowlers typically have a long barrel, sometimes up to six feet in length. correction the blunderbuss was NOt a shotgun but gave the hammer design for some 12 gauge one like the oe i ws just shooting Cheese299 (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

2.)

Both sides in the Civil War used shotguns, particularly in cavalry units. However, those guns were almost certainly muzzle-loaded. While a hammer-fired break-action shotgun was developed in the 1850s in France, it used shells with a self-contained needle-firing aparatus that was not in use in North America at the time of the Civil War. Between the end of the civil war and the 1880s, hammer-fired break-action shotguns were in increasingly common use throughout the American West. The first successful repeating shotgun was patented by Browning on February 16, 1886 (Patent Number 336,287). That lever-action shotgum became known as the Winchester Model 1887. (http://www.browning.com/customerservice/qna/detail.asp?ID=202) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmfranklin1963 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

legal length for shotguns inside of your home

We had a discusion at work about the leagal length for a shot gun barrel. some say as long as the shot gun stays within the bonderies of the property owned by the gun owner it is legal for the shotgun barrel to be shorter than 18". if the owner leaves his/her property with the gun, thats when shot gun becomes elegal. Is this a true statement? this is in the state of louisiana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.198.235 (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Property boundaries have nothing to do with it. If it is a short-barreled shotgun, you must have a BATF Form 4 or 5 to own/possess it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Silencers?

Let's face it, the first time most of us became aware a shotgun silencer even existed (or apparently existed) was when we saw No Country For Old Men. Was this a fictitious device created for the film? Do these things exist???? --RThompson82 (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Red Jacket Firearms makes shotgun suppressors. Howndog (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Another suppressor is made by Hushpower. It really reduces the noise where the shot is 90% absorbed. 173.195.2.249 (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

in Legal section

Canada has removed their long gun registry Howndog (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 October 2012

Shotguns

In Legal section - Canada

add:

On April 5, 2012, Bill C-19, the Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, came into effect. The key changes are as follows:

• Removal of the requirement to register non-restricted firearms,
• Destruction of the existing non-restricted firearms registration records, and
• Allowing the transferor of a non-restricted firearm to obtain confirmation of a transferee’s firearms acquisition licence prior to the transfer being finalized.

-taken from RCMP website

Howndog (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I looked up the reference so I could add this for you. (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/change-changement-eng.htm) Unfortunately, "taken" seems to be literally true. Could you provide your own wording and reactivate the template? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 October 2012

Hello,

I read this shotgun page and I found an error. There is said that in country's where they use the metric system, the shotnumber is the diameter of the shot in millimeters. I'm from the Netherlands, we use the metric system, and the shotnumbers are NOT the diameter of the shot in millimeters. In Europe, a change of the shotnumber bij +1 or -1, means a change in diameter by 0,25 millimeters. This works as followed: Shotnumber Shotsize 1 4,00 mm 2 3,75 mm 3 3,50 mm 4 3,25 mm 5 3,00 mm 6 2,75 mm 7 2,50 mm 8 2,25 mm 9 2,00 mm

I hope anyone can change this. Regards 83.163.17.5 (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the sentence that I think you're talking about, as this subject is covered in better detail (and per your claim, correctly) on the Shotgun shell article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 02:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 April 2013

The Benelli m4 shotgun page isn't linked on the image. Waterpae (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Done.TMCk (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

"For most of the history of the shotgun, the break-action breech loading double WAS the most common type," Please change to: "Depending on the country, for example in the Europe, the break-action breech loading double is still the most common type"
I am not anti-gun and personally more near the Vermont/Napoleon laws not the Hitler banning all the guns. But this sentence depends on the country. Yes - in the USA(and article look like from USA perspective) most common is pump-action shotgun. In Russia most common is semi-automatic ak-style shotgun(yes, look at saiga). But in Europe, generally most common(despite laws, than in most countries allow up to semi-automatic, and in some full auto) is classic double barrel, double shot break action breech loading, if we ask about shotguns.

Do you have a source to support this change? Jguy _Talk^Done 00:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2014

Request removal of image from article as images from a mass shooting incident are not relevant to the article.

CCTV footage of Aaron Alexis holding a Remington 870.

Aberhow (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Technical 13 (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Fragmented sentences in Gauge section

The gauge section has some sentence fragmentation: "By far the most common gauges are 12 (0.729 in, 18.5 mm diameter) and 20 (0.614 in, 15.6 mm), although .410 (= 67), 32, 28, 24, 16, and 10 (19.7 mm) gauge. Ammunition manufacturer CCI produces 9 mm (.355 in.) and several other popular pistol calibers up to .45 ACP as well as .22 (5.5 mm) for firing from handguns. These are commonly called snake shot cartridges. rimfire caliber "

The "rimfire caliber" at the end is a mysterious fragment; does it go with the ensuing reference in some way? The first sentence quoted above lacks a verb at the end of "although .410 ... gauge." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.5.239 (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

back-boring barrels

A recent innovation is the back-boring of barrels, in which the barrels are bored out slightly larger than their actual gauge. This reduces the compression forces on the shot when it transitions from the chamber to the barrel. This leads to a slight reduction in perceived recoil, and an improvement in shot pattern due to reduced deformation of the shot.

This statement donsn't make sense. Recoil is the consequence of accelerated mass and depends on shot mass and muzzle velocity. Nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.13.110.234 (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Linkrot

{{linkrot}} 99.238.74.216 (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Article cleanup tags go on the article itself, not the talk page. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 11:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge frag 12 and grenade round type sections

"Frag-12 shotgun rounds are a series of special purpose shotgun grenades, including high explosive blast, fragmentation, and HEAP grenades intended to be fired from any 12-ga shotgun. They are distinguished from regular shotgun rounds by a green hull. It has been proposed as an armament for modern UAVs and is currently being tested for military deployment.[18]

Grenade rounds use exploding projectiles to increase long range lethality. These are currently experimental, but the British FRAG-12, which comes in both armor penetrating and fragmentary forms, is under consideration by military forces[19]"

I think the grenade rounds paragraph and frag-12 paragraph should be merged because they appear to be talking about the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.8.168 (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

While the paper referenced was retrieved in 2015, it is FROM 2004. Has there been ANY official information about this supposed super-grenade fired from a shotgun in the past 10 years?!85.229.59.77 (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference fix

In the specialty ammunition section, there is a reference in the paragraph discussing blank shells that got messed up because of an inserted bracket. I would fix it, but the page is semi-protected. --75.166.128.105 (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

"Asymmetric engagement firearm"

From the current page:

"A shotgun (also known as a scattergun and peppergun,[1] or historically as a fowling piece) is an asymmetric engagement firearm that is usually designed to be fired from the shoulder, which uses the energy of a fixed shell to fire a number of small spherical pellets called shot, or a solid projectile called a slug."

There is absolutely no basis for defining shotguns, across the board, as "asymmetric engagement firearms." In fact, that is a very dubious classification to give any firearm as it is not defined, and not even remotely common. In fact if you do an Internet search for "asymmetric engagement firearm" the only hits you will get point to this page or pages that copy from the wikipedia article.

I'd also add that it's peculiar to say "usually designed to be fired from the shoulder" when A) virtually all small arms are and B) benchrest shotguns are very niche and very rare, almost unheard of.

--Cbn620 (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Shotgun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130613052819/http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001951.html to http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001951.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080903132852/http://www.taser.com:80/PRODUCTS/LAW/Pages/XREP.aspx to http://www.taser.com/products/law/Pages/XREP.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080725055416/http://www.gun-tests.com/performance/apr97browning.html to http://www.gun-tests.com/performance/apr97browning.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080413202508/http://www.mcwl.usmc.mil/factsheets/FRAG12%205%20Aug%2005.pdf to http://www.mcwl.usmc.mil/factsheets/FRAG12%205%20Aug%2005.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150402005909/http://www.taser.com/products/law/Pages/XREP.aspx to http://taser.com/products/law/Pages/XREP.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150219172815/http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A351134&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf to http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A351134&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2015

Considering that the PDF-file used as a source for the supposedly 'in testing' Frag-12 grenade-round is more than a decade old, and the round still haven't, to the best of my knowledge, become anything more than a novelty round, that section can probably be removed in its entirety. 85.229.48.166 (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JustBerry (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove the entire section on the 'Frag-12' round, under 'Speciality Ammunition'. The PDF that it uses as a source on is 11 years old. There is no other 'source' given, and the round is not in use by any military. Essentially, this is an experiment that appeared in tv, but never actually went anywhere. Further proof does exist, if needed. 85.229.48.166 (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A quick search provides sources supporting these rounds, ([4][5]). If you can provide a source as to their non-existence, then it might be removed. There is no reason to now. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The first page might have been a valid source, except that looking further into it, nowhere on CSi(the purported manufacturer)'s site is there any mention of this being something they manufacture or sell, and the 'army-technology.com' page is 4 years old and change. The SECOND 'source' is a page relating to a roleplaying game. That the page claims this is a 'real weapon' doesn't mean that it's in actual manufacture. All it means is that the creator of the page saw an old episode of 'Future Weapons' on tv or youtube and thought it'd be something cool to include in his game. Seriously, the fact that one references a 'ninjas and superspy' page as a supposed support for this thing existing, should be a fairly clear indicator...the Frag-12 is not in use by any military or para-military force in the world, and is, as best as can be found with a REAL search, not in actual manufacture.

Done I've been looking at this the wrong way. I did not check to see if they were infact made, just that they may exist. Shame I was in too much of a hurry to catch that about the second link I provided. -- Orduin ^Discuss 16:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Barrel length and modern powder citation

Under the "Barrel length" section: "According to Remington, modern powder in a shotgun burns completely in 25 (9.8425 in) to 36 (14.173 in) cm barrels." This has no citation and I can't find anywhere where Remington has said this. --208.117.101.118 (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Usage

Should there be a section about the kinds of injuries use of shotguns inflict? ♆ CUSH ♆ 16:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2016

In the Canada section, please change: All non-restricted shotguns must have an overall length of 660 mm (26 in). To: All non-restricted shotguns must have an overall length of at least 660 mm (26 in). SeanPorterfield (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Done clpo13_(talk) 05:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2016

Lever-action Shotguns In more recent times lever action shotguns have seen a resurgence in some markets with the Turkish made Adler A110 Lever action shotgun selling extremely well in the Australian marketplace and being imported into North America as well. The success of the Adler in these markets has sparked several other manufactures in Turkey to begin development of and production of their own lever action shotguns.

It has been reported that Turkish-made Adler lever-action shotguns, and also the Turkish-made Pardus lever-action shotguns, both feature PATENTED cantilever design actions with short-stroke cycles to enable fast operation. [ Adler - Turkish PATENT Application No. 2014/09311 ] and [ Pardus - refer to Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia (SSAA) 'Australian Shooter' Magazine, March 2016, page 59; which states: "The Pardus lever action shotgun comes with a PATENTED smooth pull action and has a cantilever design to make the action extra smooth to cycle" [1] [2] Furthermore, the 2016 SHOT Show Exhibitors website included a description about the company of Adler Arms; which stated: "Presenting the unique and flawless lever action shotgun to our customers. Besides offering PATENTED units, Adler Arms Company ... " [3] However, Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia (SSAA) erroneously/falsely claim that the Adler lever-action shotgun features "no new technology in the firearm and that it operates in the same manner and same speed as all other lever action shotguns." [4] 101.187.141.154 (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@101.187.141.154: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 15:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The statement that Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia (SSAA) erroneously/falsely claim that the Adler lever-action shotgun features "no new technology in the firearm and that it operates in the same manner and same speed as all other lever action shotguns.", is deceptive and should be referenced by an external subject matter expert or removed. The Adler A110 and the Pardus Lax 12 both operate with a lever action, with a rear of lever attachment to the bolt carrier in the receiver. This is similar in principle and operation to the Savage 1899, 1895 lever action rifles and the Ruger 96 series and of lever action rifles amongst others. The shotgun does also operate from a user perspective with the same operation and speed as other lever action shotguns like the Winchester 1885/1901 or Marlin 1895.

Whilst the manufacturers in Turkey may have applied for a patent that hardly indicates it is actually a new development in firearms technology, a patent application and approval is not an exhaustive testing of whether or not that patent is actually valid. It seems likely that a patent for a Adler or Pardus shotgun would likely be deemed to be invalid on the grounds of being obvious to someone knowledgeable in the art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varagner (talk • contribs) 06:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6th December 2016

Can you change the fact that it states that in the UK hunting refers to hunting mammals with a pack of hounds, and that game is just birds, and remove the bracket completely. Because game is anything that can legally be hunted,not just birds, according to game. (JJIHARKER (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC))

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

May i ask what sources the current information cited? (JJIHARKER (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC))

Seeing as i have not had a reply to that, i will give my sources, The Game chef a, BASC Supported Company which specialises in recipes for Game. On it's website http://www.thegamechef.co.uk/ it list recipes for: Pheasant, Partridge, Rabbit and, Venison, all of which it categorises as Game. Now please can you carry out my request, Thank you. JJIHARKER (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Also in the UK hunting does not just refer hunting with a pack of dogs, it also refers to hunting with a rifle, that is why a poacher is anyone who hunts illegally, and i'm pretty sure it would be difficult to stealthily get a pack of dogs together and ride around on horses chasing deer or foxes, and generally people only use that method to hunt Foxes not larger animals like Deer. Deer is usually stalked not chased with dogs. I don't have any sources to back it up, but if you talk to any British hunter (who hunts anything not just foxes) then they will probably say that Hunting is not just hunting an animal with a pack of dogs, it encompasses hunting in its entirety not just that small part of hunting. JJIHARKER (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Please provide reliable sources that support the changes you want to be made.Also, seeHunting and shooting in the United Kingdom.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 16:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

OK i stand corrected about Hunting, but i stand by my guns on the fact that Game refers to any animal that can be legally shot. As for a reliable source, i don't think that the BASC would advertise something that was Incorrect. Thus i request that you change the part which says that game refers to Birds. JJIHARKER (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia article shotgun shell under the section labelled Shot sizes, and then under bird-shot and buckshot, it says that bird shot is for smaller Game like birds, and buckshot is for larger Game like deer. In the Wikipedia page Game it defines game as any animal hunted for sport or food. The Oxford English dictionary defines game as 'Wild mammals or birds hunted for sport or food'. now are you going to argue with the Oxford English dictionary, or are you going to carry out the edit Please. JJIHARKER (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Also a gamekeeper is someone who;s job it is to look after an area of land, and make sure the game is safe from both predators, i.e foxes and badgers. But their job is also to protect the fish from animals like herons, these fish are hunted for sport, and protected by the gamekeeper, so they are game, just like the gamekeeper protects the Pheasants from the Mink. These are all responsibility of a GAMEkeeper, the definition of game is literally in the name. JJIHARKER (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

? JJIHARKER (talk) 21:23 8 January 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Revolver shotguns

Why is this category constantly being removed? Does someone think they don't exist?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Your thing says "President Barack Obama" I just wanna change it to "Former President Barack Obama"

Your thing says "President Barack Obama" I just wanna change it to "Former President Barack Obama"

}} 184.60.143.205 (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

US presidents keep their title for life, so it is still correct.--Dmol (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

By tradition as of late, not by policy, and usually reserved for the most Recent former President as the others are commonly called Former President. All this is usually only performedby the US press not by anyone else.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Occupational titles (such as "President") are not generally used in casual references to a person in encyclopedia articles. I'll remove it to just read "Barack Obama". Marteau (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2019

In Legal issues, US:

Shotguns intended for defensive use have barrels as short as 18 inches (46 cm) for private use (the minimum shotgun barrel length allowed by law in the United States without federal registration. Barrel lengths of less than 18 inches (46 cm) as measured from the breechface to the muzzle when the weapon is in battery, or have an overall length of less than 26 inches (66 cm) are classified as short barreled shotguns (SBS) under the 1934 National Firearms Act and are regulated. A similar short barreled weapon having a pistol grip may be classified as an AOW or "Any Other Weapon". A shotgun is defined as a weapon (with a buttstock) designed to be fired from the shoulder. The classification varies depending on how the weapon was originally manufactured.

should be changed to:

Shotguns intended for defensive use have barrels as short as 18 inches (46 cm) for private use (the minimum shotgun barrel length allowed by law in the United States without federal registration. Barrel lengths of less than 18 inches (46 cm) as measured from the breechface to the muzzle when the weapon is in battery, or have an overall length of less than 26 inches (66 cm) are classified as short barreled shotguns (SBS) under the 1934 National Firearms Act and are regulated. A similar short barreled weapon having a pistol grip may be classified as an AOW or "Any Other Weapon" or "Firearm," depending on barrel length. A shotgun is defined as a weapon (with a buttstock) designed to be fired from the shoulder. The classification varies depending on how the weapon was originally manufactured.

National Gun Control Act: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf#page=1 Example of a non-NFA item (14 inch barrel, pistol grip): https://www.mossberg.com/category/series/590-shockwave/ Example of an AOW, smooth-bore handgun (6.5 inch barrel, pistol grip): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbu_Super-Shorty NicholasRC7 (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Interstellarity (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2020

In the first sentence of the article change "cartridges" to "cartridge" 2601:8B:C301:6C80:70AF:22E3:1CE0:5BAA (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

A mare's leg is not a shotgun

I believe the See Also under lever action should be REMOVVVEDDD

There is a Mare's Leg shotgun variant, that thanks to Terminator 2 has gained some popularity. I've moved it to the more appropriate See Also section at the end of the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2022

Change "Revolver-action" to "Semi-automatic" in the caption of the first image. This is a trivial mistake that was already pointed out and i believe there is a silent consensus. 2001:16B8:17E6:6E00:BC68:B5D:4014:FD2C (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done - the target article describes the weapon as "...a delayed blowback semi-automatic shotgun with a 16-round detachable revolver magazine." - so although "revolver-action" isn't completely incorrect, in the context of the image "semi-automatic" is more accurate. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The great effect of shotguns in the First World War

Modern thinking on the shotguns effect in the First World War is that they were not (c&rsenel ,forgotten weapons) the problem being their narrow use in the trenches along with the fact that early issue ammo was of waxed cardboard construction and prone to swelling in the damp and muddy atmosphere of the trench led to it being essentially a non factor in the First World War 2603:6010:140:2D2:71A7:A75F:4940:CF5E (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Under the heading of type

A snake charmer is not a type of shotgun it would more accurately be called a garden gun and that is a specific type of shotgun that’s bore is measured in caliber (as percentage of inch or mm) the snake charmer is a model of this type of shotgun usually starting with the .22 garden guns of the late nineteenth century . And at the top end the .410 shotgun which is a nominal .41 caliber Godofshore (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)